FirePro R5000 vs Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile with FirePro R5000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5000 Mobile outperforms R5000 by a whopping 415% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 182 | 626 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.27 |
| Power efficiency | 22.80 | 3.25 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 May 2019 (6 years ago) | 25 February 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3072 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1035 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1545 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 296.6 | 39.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.492 TFLOPS | 1.267 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 192 | 48 |
| Tensor Cores | 384 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 3 MB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 512 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 279 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 132
+450%
| 24−27
−450%
|
| 1440p | 84
+425%
| 16−18
−425%
|
| 4K | 54
+440%
| 10−12
−440%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 45.79 |
| 1440p | no data | 68.69 |
| 4K | no data | 109.90 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+429%
|
35−40
−429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+436%
|
14−16
−436%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 85−90
+431%
|
16−18
−431%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 165
+450%
|
30−33
−450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+429%
|
35−40
−429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+436%
|
14−16
−436%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 128
+433%
|
24−27
−433%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+448%
|
27−30
−448%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+433%
|
24−27
−433%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+478%
|
18−20
−478%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+450%
|
24−27
−450%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+480%
|
35−40
−480%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 162
+440%
|
30−33
−440%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+429%
|
35−40
−429%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+456%
|
50−55
−456%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+436%
|
14−16
−436%
|
| Dota 2 | 98
+444%
|
18−20
−444%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 123
+486%
|
21−24
−486%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+448%
|
27−30
−448%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+433%
|
24−27
−433%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110
+478%
|
18−20
−478%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+443%
|
21−24
−443%
|
| Metro Exodus | 99
+450%
|
18−20
−450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+450%
|
24−27
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 181
+417%
|
35−40
−417%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+480%
|
35−40
−480%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 152
+463%
|
27−30
−463%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+436%
|
14−16
−436%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+475%
|
16−18
−475%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 115
+448%
|
21−24
−448%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+433%
|
24−27
−433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+450%
|
24−27
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100
+456%
|
18−20
−456%
|
| Valorant | 181
+417%
|
35−40
−417%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+448%
|
27−30
−448%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+457%
|
14−16
−457%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+478%
|
40−45
−478%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+450%
|
12−14
−450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 59
+490%
|
10−11
−490%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+483%
|
30−33
−483%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+429%
|
45−50
−429%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 124
+417%
|
24−27
−417%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+500%
|
6−7
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 102
+467%
|
18−20
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+463%
|
16−18
−463%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+490%
|
10−11
−490%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
+431%
|
16−18
−431%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+500%
|
6−7
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+467%
|
12−14
−467%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 71
+492%
|
12−14
−492%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+474%
|
35−40
−474%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 73
+421%
|
14−16
−421%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+500%
|
6−7
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−105
+456%
|
18−20
−456%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 56
+460%
|
10−11
−460%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+500%
|
10−11
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+486%
|
7−8
−486%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
This is how RTX 5000 Mobile and FirePro R5000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 450% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 425% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5000 Mobile is 440% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.57 | 6.33 |
| Recency | 27 May 2019 | 25 February 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 350 Watt |
RTX 5000 Mobile has a 415% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133% more advanced lithography process, and 218% lower power consumption.
The Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro R5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics card while FirePro R5000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
